Summary
Mr and Mrs C, who are housing association tenants, arranged for the association to work on their heating system. This work required the removal and refitting of carpet.
Mr and Mrs C complained that the association unreasonably damaged their carpet and failed to refit it properly following the works. They complained that newspapers beneath the carpet and underlay had been removed but not replaced, and that sections of carpet were removed when it was refitted. They were particularly concerned that sections of underlay, which they said was of a special type, were removed at the doorways. Although this had been an upsetting matter for Mr and Mrs C, the original carpet fitter's manager stated that the underlay had actually been of a standard kind.
The association had also obtained advice from an independent carpet retailer about appropriate practice for underlay and thresholds. This advice confirmed that underlay should not be fitted beneath a threshold bar as had originally been done and that the carpet fitter, when refitting the carpet, had followed accepted practice. Sections of the carpet were removed as part of the 'stretching' process when relaying the carpet, something that the association indicated had not been done when the original carpet was laid.
While noting that it would have been reasonable for the carpet fitter, in anticipation of Mr and Mrs C's potential concerns, to have explained what he was doing, our investigation found no evidence to indicate that anything other than accepted practice had been followed. As such, we did not uphold the complaint.
Related reading
View Decision Report 201204206 as a PDF (11.41 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018